Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 3/11/2005 5:43:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 5:50:34 AM EDT by Rand]
Would you die to defend your 2A Rights? If Guns where completly outlawed


I would because i feel it is essentially the force behind the Constituition,without it our rights are at the whim of the government.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:44:22 AM EDT
That is the question, now isn't it?
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:45:28 AM EDT
I'd die to keep my guns, because I fear the oppression that would follow gun confiscation worse than I fear death.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:45:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 5:47:14 AM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]
A better question is: Would you *kill* to protect 2nd Amendment rights?

ETA:
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:45:55 AM EDT
Yep... just one step closer to becoming the communist government type we dispise. Or evil dictatorship.

Molon Labe
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:46:14 AM EDT
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:46:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I'd die to keep my guns, because I fear the oppression that would follow gun confiscation worse than I fear death.



I second that. More the fear of what would happen afterwards and now being relinquished of possibly the only thing that gave you enough balance to defend yourself against those future oppressions...
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:47:22 AM EDT
Yes. But I also believe that if or when that day comes, they will tell you all (and the world) that I was a terrorist white supremacist child pornographer arms dealer lunatic, and most of you (and the world) will say that I got what I deserved. Only I, God, and a few good people will know the truth.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:47:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 5:48:45 AM EDT by PBIR]
Hmm...that would depend on the circumstances I think.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:47:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
A better question is: Would you *kill* to protect 2nd Amendment rights?

ETA:



Yep.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:48:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hk940:
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.



Machineguns are different... I think he's talking about an entire withdrawl of the 2nd amendment from the constitution. Confiscation of arms to anyone non LEO or Military.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:49:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hk940:
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.



So you voted NO?
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:49:37 AM EDT
I'd kill the SOB that tried taking my second amendment rights from me.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:49:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
Machineguns are different... I think he's talking about an entire withdrawl of the 2nd amendment from the constitution. Confiscation of arms to anyone non LEO or Military.


Welcome to the world of sheeple.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:50:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:

Originally Posted By hk940:
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.



Machineguns are different...



No, they aren't.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:52:13 AM EDT
By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:53:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

.



Sheep.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:53:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 5:54:28 AM EDT by JBowles]
crew served guns?
thats ok for anything 20mm or over.
i don't think any one even has one.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:53:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.


Why do you "need" those, anyway?
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:54:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
A better question is: Would you *kill* to protect 2nd Amendment rights?

ETA:

That goes pretty much hand-in-hand. When you decide to defend the 2nd Amendment with lethal force, the power of the State will come down on you, and you will die.

It's not an easy decision, but it's one I think we're goint to be faced with more and more.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:55:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:

Originally Posted By hk940:
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.



Machineguns are different... I think he's talking about an entire withdrawl of the 2nd amendment from the constitution. Confiscation of arms to anyone non LEO or Military.



OK, then what about a CA type ban that grandfathers current owners (so long as they register) but no child born in California after 1994 can ever legally own an AR-15? (And as soon as the last legally registered owner of an AR-15 dies, there are no more legally owned in civilian hands.)
My point is that I don't think there will ever be a sudden withdrawal of 2nd Amendment rights - it's going to be gradual. So the prior question about fully automatic weapons is a valid question. If you "draw the line," where do you draw it?
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:55:50 AM EDT
I can list a lot more "needs" for those then for an MG42 or .50 cal machinegun.
Practical needs as well. Are you going to tell me you're going to sandbag a .50 cal machinegun onto your roof in case someone breaks in? Are you going to be hunting with one? First of all, can you even AFFORD one...
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:55:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.



Please tell me you are kidding.

If not, you don't belong here.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:56:16 AM EDT
That is a silly question, unless you put it in context. Guns are not going to be magically banned without the erosion of other Constitutional rights. In order to impose such draconian laws, a political environment must exist in which many other rights of the People are being suppressed; examples being freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.

By the time we are fighting tooth and nail for 2nd Amendment rights, we will (hypothetically) be fighting for a lot more than just that.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:56:38 AM EDT
Guns are a means to an end. I would not die to keep them. My life is to damned important. I wouldnt turn them in either. No armed revolution will save this country. We will only end up like the balkan states. The way to fight is to fight it philosophically. The pen is mightier than the sword.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:56:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.


Why do you "need" those, anyway?





All I need is my .22 rifle and my .38 and I'm not so sure I need the .38 anymore.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:57:00 AM EDT
I voted "No."

Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:57:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
I can list a lot more "needs" for those then for an MG42 or .50 cal machinegun.
Practical needs as well. Are you going to tell me you're going to sandbag a .50 cal machinegun onto your roof in case someone breaks in? Are you going to be hunting with one? First of all, can you even AFFORD one...



The 2nd Amendment says nothing about hunting or people breaking into your home.

Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:58:10 AM EDT
Jesus christ i cant believe some of these replies.Why shouldnt law abiding citizens be allowed to own machine guns?


And I cant believe people are voting No.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:58:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.



Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:58:53 AM EDT
Yep, but it won't be pretty...
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:58:58 AM EDT
I would prefer not to find out how far I would go.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:59:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hk940:
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.



You can't stop a freight train by jumping in front of it.

Wait for the right time, generate sympathy for the cause for now, and then act- using violence only if absolutely necessary.



Read this article about modern secession

Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:59:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hk940:
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.




or a nuclear warhead for that matter... Let's not exagerate here, he is talking about "The right to keep & bear arms.." Like if they came to take away your HK.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:00:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
I can list a lot more "needs" for those then for an MG42 or .50 cal machinegun.
Practical needs as well. Are you going to tell me you're going to sandbag a .50 cal machinegun onto your roof in case someone breaks in? Are you going to be hunting with one? First of all, can you even AFFORD one...



well if no one has one or can efford one why ban it.
like i said anything smaller than about 20mm i'll flight for.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:00:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:

Originally Posted By hk940:
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.



Machineguns are different... I think he's talking about an entire withdrawl of the 2nd amendment from the constitution. Confiscation of arms to anyone non LEO or Military.



OK, then what about a CA type ban that grandfathers current owners (so long as they register) but no child born in California after 1994 can ever legally own an AR-15? (And as soon as the last legally registered owner of an AR-15 dies, there are no more legally owned in civilian hands.)
My point is that I don't think there will ever be a sudden withdrawal of 2nd Amendment rights - it's going to be gradual. So the prior question about fully automatic weapons is a valid question. If you "draw the line," where do you draw it?



I think you guys have me misinterpreted. I'm all for Assault weapons and ARs. It makes me sad the ban happened in Ca, I'm against it. Hell I've written several letter to oppose the ban that was going through in Washington for ARs. I want my kids to have the same rights and opportunities I have. I just don't see a need for having a "machinegun". A smaller version of an automatic weapon, commonly known as "submachineguns" I'm for as well.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:01:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By peekay:

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.






Yes, that's the same face I made when I read that.

I'll say it again, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HUNTING!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nope, I don't see anything in there about hunting. I don't see anything in there about defending against home break-ins. I see A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY to our security. Thank God our founding fathers didn't think like you.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:02:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.



Your book sucks. I think you need to re-read the Constitution, figure out what it is for, and check back.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:02:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 6:04:36 AM EDT by Yojimbo]
This is also a question I like to ask anti's, "Would you be willing to die to take away my guns?". This question is always followed by a blank stare and some people are shocked it might even go that far...
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:02:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rand:
Would you die to defend your 2A Rights? If Guns where completly outlawed.


Dieing? I don't think so. Many gunners aren't even taking the time to vote, or campaign for their favorite pro-gun political candidate, or campaign against an anti-gun candidate. This is stuff is easier than dieing.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:03:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:

Originally Posted By hk940:
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.



Machineguns are different... I think he's talking about an entire withdrawl of the 2nd amendment from the constitution. Confiscation of arms to anyone non LEO or Military.



OK, then what about a CA type ban that grandfathers current owners (so long as they register) but no child born in California after 1994 can ever legally own an AR-15? (And as soon as the last legally registered owner of an AR-15 dies, there are no more legally owned in civilian hands.)
My point is that I don't think there will ever be a sudden withdrawal of 2nd Amendment rights - it's going to be gradual. So the prior question about fully automatic weapons is a valid question. If you "draw the line," where do you draw it?



I think you guys have me misinterpreted. I'm all for Assault weapons and ARs. It makes me sad the ban happened in Ca, I'm against it. Hell I've written several letter to oppose the ban that was going through in Washington for ARs. I want my kids to have the same rights and opportunities I have. I just don't see a need for having a "machinegun". A smaller version of an automatic weapon, commonly known as "submachineguns" I'm for as well.



I don't see a need for someone to drive a Hummer or for someone to own a car that will go over 150 mph. I am all for the right of people to own those things though.

Ban something because YOU have no need for it, huh? Pathetic.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:03:31 AM EDT
well fuck i want an M240 on my truck like the SF guys, and a 50 for the van. i never no when i could use it. a 50 on top of some ones car would of end the Nhollywood in seconds.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:04:09 AM EDT

By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.



That is a very liberal statement. By definition, not law, an assault rifle is select fire which makes it a machine gun. The Article II of the BoR was put in place to ensure our freedoms and at the time of writing, the civilian arms were more advanced than those in the hands of Fedeal soldiers. Why should it be so different today? Let's review. "The Right to Keep and Bare Arms". Arms meaning anything that can be carried onto the field of battle by one man. So yes, IMHO, the '86 ban does teeter on the border of being Unconstitutional.

I too would be willing to kill to protect not just my 2nd ammendnent right, but all rights that are covered by the BoR.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:04:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:

Originally Posted By hk940:
Ok big man. Hears your chance.
Build an illegal machinegun and then call the ATF.
Tell them the machinegun ban is unconstitutional and you have not intention of following it.

I will watch this evenings news.



Machineguns are different... I think he's talking about an entire withdrawl of the 2nd amendment from the constitution. Confiscation of arms to anyone non LEO or Military.



OK, then what about a CA type ban that grandfathers current owners (so long as they register) but no child born in California after 1994 can ever legally own an AR-15? (And as soon as the last legally registered owner of an AR-15 dies, there are no more legally owned in civilian hands.)
My point is that I don't think there will ever be a sudden withdrawal of 2nd Amendment rights - it's going to be gradual. So the prior question about fully automatic weapons is a valid question. If you "draw the line," where do you draw it?



it has been drawn. Again and again and each time the government takes a little more. Just like the American Indian, soon the US gun owner will have nothing. not even a H&R single shot 12 gauge.
so what are we going to do about it?
Nothing. We are going to let them take it away. How do i know? We are doing nothing to restore existing illegal "infringements" on our liberties. Look at the NRA or any other pro gun group. When was the last time they went on the Attack? They don't even try to defend people from unconstitutional laws.

If the NRA acted like the ACLU everyone in America could own full auto.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:05:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Guns are a means to an end. I would not die to keep them. My life is to damned important. I wouldnt turn them in either. No armed revolution will save this country. We will only end up like the balkan states. The way to fight is to fight it philosophically. The pen is mightier than the sword.



So tell me what are you going to do with your pen while someone is trying to stab you in the face with a sword? Think about it if the where to ban guns whats next?No free speech, tell me how much must your rights must be eroded before you would make a stand?


The pen is mightier than the sword is a dumb saying.

Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:08:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rand:
The pen is mightier than the sword is a dumb saying.



Words of wisdom here.


Last time I checked, the Army didn't issue pens to Infantrymen. First of all, we can't write... but also they are largely ineffective against AK-47s.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:09:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
I can list a lot more "needs" for those then for an MG42 or .50 cal machinegun.
Practical needs as well. Are you going to tell me you're going to sandbag a .50 cal machinegun onto your roof in case someone breaks in? Are you going to be hunting with one? First of all, can you even AFFORD one...



Bzz, wrong answer. Please play again.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:09:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 6:11:15 AM EDT by Coolio]
I clicked the "yes" button, but it is becoming more problematical. Not the principal of the thing, but the effectiveness of the outcome (resistance).
On the "Military channel" (digital cable) they've been showing programs about the next generation of military weapons; small arms and light weapons including the next generation of heavy machine gun. There's stuff about to come on line (and not fifty years from now, but in like the next five to ten years) that's going to make an AR or even an M-16 look like a flintlock rifle. There's some shit coming down the pike which will so increase the effective military muscle that the government can put into play as to make almost any resistance that civies could field almost completely impotent. The idea that the Republic could be restored by a disorganized militia may be becoming obsolete.
So, I guess it boils down to whether or not you feel throwing your life away for only a principal without any realistic chance of real victory is REALLY worth it. The future is really frightening. I'm over fifty and I probably won't have to live there in any event.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:09:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:

I think you guys have me misinterpreted. I'm all for Assault weapons and ARs. It makes me sad the ban happened in Ca, I'm against it. Hell I've written several letter to oppose the ban that was going through in Washington for ARs. I want my kids to have the same rights and opportunities I have. I just don't see a need for having a "machinegun". A smaller version of an automatic weapon, commonly known as "submachineguns" I'm for as well.



I think you're well intentioned but a little off. The intent of the 2A was to have an armed citizenry in order to prevent an oppressive regime from taking power. This means having the ability to penetrate armor and generally cause tremendous amounts of destruction- MGs are a necessary addition to your arsenal.

Our first wars were fought with privately owned arms, including cannons. Today these would be the equivelent of 20mm cannons, .50BMG, etc.

Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:11:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By colesteele:

By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.



That is a very liberal statement. By definition, not law, an assault rifle is select fire which makes it a machine gun. The Article II of the BoR was put in place to ensure our freedoms and at the time of writing, the civilian arms were more advanced than those in the hands of Fedeal soldiers. Why should it be so different today? Let's review. "The Right to Keep and Bare Arms". Arms meaning anything that can be carried onto the field of battle by one man. So yes, IMHO, the '86 ban does teeter on the border of being Unconstitutional.

I too would be willing to kill to protect not just my 2nd ammendnent right, but all rights that are covered by the BoR.



Ok well I guess I was being selfish in saying that the ban on "machineguns" was justified. Of course I think I simply misinterpreted what machineguns meant, I know it says nothing about hunting and home defense. It simply says the right to keep and bear them. When I think of that, I think of the "cowboy, wild west" time period. When people just walked around openly with them... You don't think I'd like that? The government is stepping all over our toes and shoving us back into a corner. You're not doing anything about it and neither am I. The sad part is, when a rabid dog ( the people) is backed into a corner far enough, it will fight, and fight furiously.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:12:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
By machineguns I define that as like Mg42s or something... now that's a little obssessive and I wouldn't really care about a ban on those things. If you're not Mil you don't need one, if you want to "collect" one then have one that has necesarry components removed so it won't fire.

Assault/Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle are all ok and Id fight for those in my book.

Quoted to expose the
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top